"If Knoxville Kids Skip Class for Bible Study, Satanists Want in on the Action"

[ImmortalFlame]

What really hits the RCC is the number of priests. The ratio of paedophiles in the RCC is equal to any organization, it just looks worse because the number of people is higher.

...But essentially, it's the same equivalent, person for person.

It's not about numbers, it's about the systemic way the Church attempted to cover-up their crimes and silence or discredit their victims. Nobody is arguing that being a Catholic priest MAKES you a paedophile. The issue is that the institution of the Catholic Church was knowingly complicit in the protection of paedophiles and the subversion of justice in an effort to protect their reputation.

 

[Cooky]

Meanwhile, your assumption that satanists "most likely" molest children is based on...?

Statistics. There's likely a paedophile in every group, if their numbers reach a certain point.

 

[Cooky]

It's not about numbers, it's about the systemic way the Church attempted to cover-up their crimes and silence or discredit their victims.

That's issue B.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Statistics. There's likely a paedophile in every group, if their numbers reach a certain point.

Do you have any evidence of the satanic church protecting paedophiles in their organization and using their positions within their communities to groom children?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's issue B.

No, that's very much issue A.

Do you excuse it? Do you think the RCC's protection of paedophiles was justified?

 

[Cooky]

No, that's very much issue A.

Do you excuse it? Do you think the RCC's protection of paedophiles was justified?

Hell no, it's issue B. Like I said -because there would be no need for a coverup if the molestations hadn't occured in the first place.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hell no, it's issue B. Like I said -because there would be no need for a coverup if the molestations hadn't occured in the first place.

So does the fact that a child was molested justify protecting the molester from the law and allowing them to continue practicing within the church?

 

[Cooky]

Do you have any evidence of the satanic church protecting paedophiles in their organization and using their positions within their communities to groom children?

Why do you want such evidence? For what purpose, when paedophilia is random, and can occur with any type of person, and the likelihood of crossing paths with one is based on statistics.

 

[columbus]

What really hits the RCC is the number of priests. The ratio of paedophiles in the RCC is equal to any organization, it just looks worse because the number of people is higher.

...But essentially, it's the same equivalent, person for person.

Nope, not even close.
What caused the disaster was not just the small number of individuals who did the deeds. It was the institutional protection, moving known pedophiles to new territory, buying the silence of known victims, refusing to cooperate with authorities trying to stop the crimes, that sort of thing.
Tom

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why do you want such evidence?

Because you claimed it was "likely" that there were satanists abusing children. Presumably you are basing this on something.

For what purpose, when paedophilia is random, and can occur with any type of person, and the likelihood of crossing paths with one is based on statistics.

So do you have any evidence to suggest:

A) There are paedophiles currently operating in the Church of satan, and
B) That said church has ever, or is currently, engaged in protecting paedophiles within it?

 

[Cooky]

So does the fact that a child was molested justify protecting the molester from the law and allowing them to continue practicing within the church?

Stop asking stupid questions.

 

[Cooky]

Because you claimed it was "likely" that there were satanists abusing children. Presumably you are basing this on something.


So do you have any evidence to suggest:

A) There are paedophiles currently operating in the Church of satan, and
B) That said church has ever, or is currently, engaged in protecting paedophiles within it?

How many times do I have to explain to you that statistically, there is one paedophile out of every so many people. Are you so dense you cannot grasp the argument I have been explaining to you over and over again?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How many times do I have to explain to you that statistically, there is one paedophile out of every so many people. Are you so dense you cannot grasp the argument I have been explaining to you over and over again?

And why can't you understand - despite me and other posters explaining to you over and over again - that the NUMBER doesn't matter. What matters is the INSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION of paedophiles. Something that the Catholic Church has done, and there is no evidence of the satanic church doing.

So, if what you're saying here is true, your observation that the CoS contains paedophiles is meaningless. But what ISN'T meaningless is the fact that the Catholic church acted as an institution to PROTECT paedophiles.

Do you understand that simply HAVING paedophiles in your organization doesn't justify PROTECTING them from the law to save your organizations' reputation?

And don't you dare call me dense when I am clearly outsmarting you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Stop asking stupid questions.

So you believe it's wrong, then.

So, the Catholic church is immoral.

 

[columbus]

How many times do I have to explain to you that statistically, there is one paedophile out of every so many people. Are you so dense you cannot grasp the argument I have been explaining to you over and over again?

A couple of things.
A) A large group of men who have sworn off women is not just another group of people.
B) No other such group belongs to an institution that has as much money, power, and institutional ego as the RCC.

I love the Church. Enough to call out the moral disasters when they occur. I also defend it when that's appropriate.
Tom

 

[Cooky]

So you believe it's wrong, then.

So, the Catholic church is immoral.

Man is immoral. Regardless of their beliefs. We're all sinners in some way or another.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Man is immoral. Regardless of their beliefs. We're all sinners in some way or another.

The lengths you will go to to simply avoid saying "The Catholic church did something immoral" is impressive. I have to admit that hinting at moral relativism is a bit unexpected for a Catholic, though.

Meanwhile, us people with a moral conscience have no issue rightly stating "The Catholic church's institutional protection of paedophiles is disgusting and demonstrates the immorality and depravity of the organization".

 

[Cooky]

And why can't you understand - despite me and other posters explaining to you over and over again - that the NUMBER doesn't matter. What matters is the INSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION of paedophiles. Something that the Catholic Church has done, and there is no evidence of the satanic church doing.

So, if what you're saying here is true, your observation that the CoS contains paedophiles is meaningless. But what ISN'T meaningless is the fact that the Catholic church acted as an institution to PROTECT paedophiles.

Do you understand that simply HAVING paedophiles in your organization doesn't justify PROTECTING them from the law to save your organizations' reputation?

And don't you dare call me dense when I am clearly outsmarting you.

You've outsmarted nobody. You introduced the "protection" of paedophiles outside the scope of this argument, in a desperate attempt at some sort of win. But it's not what anyone was talking about. It's just your aside. Which is entirely off topic.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You've outsmarted nobody. You introduced the "protection" of paedophiles outside the scope of this argument, in a desperate attempt at some sort of win.

Nope. The debate was about the likelihood of children being molested within the CoS compared with the RCC. It stands to reason that children have a higher risk of being molested within an organization that has a proven history of not only housing paedophiles but actively protecting them.

Do you disagree?

But it's not what anyone was talking about. It's just your aside. Which is entirely off topic.

Paedophilia was brought up by another poster, you responded. And now you've been backed into a corner you're trying to change the subject.

Point is, you are in no position to lecture anybody about the morality of any church while you belong to the RCC.

 

[columbus]

You introduced the "protection" of paedophiles outside the scope of this argument, in a desperate attempt at some sort of win.

I'm not going back through 13 pages, but

My recollection is that you tried to claim that Satanism is institutionally immoral, and so shouldn't be given access to children, but Christian access was okay.
Maybe that wasn't you, but somebody did.

The institutional protection given to pedophiles by the RCC is solid evidence that such a claim is demonstrably wrong.
Tom